ORDER :

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 9865 of 2022 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 2505 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the order passed in L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 2013, dated 12.03.2015 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore.

Prayer: A.S. No. 47959 of 2022 is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 2013 dated 12.03.2015 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore.

1. The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 2505 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 2013.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department made a submission that the delay occurred on account of the reason that the Government Pleader, High Court of Madras in his opinion dated 02.01.2017, opined that it is not a fit case for filing an Appeal Suit. Thereafter, again a request was made for second opinion and in the said second opinion, the Government Pleader has given an opinion that it is a fit case for Appeal. It is further admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner/Tahsildar in filing the copy application for receiving certified copy of the award passed in the L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 2013. Such a delay occurred at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the unexplained delay in this regard cannot be considered for condoning the enormous delay of 2505 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the award passed in L.A.O.P.

3. Reasons are live-link for condoning enormous delay. In the absence of valid reason, Court would not condone the long delay in filing the appeals. Law of limitation is substantive. Thus, an Appeal is to be filed within the time prescribed under the Statutes. Condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, the Courts are expected to exercise the power of discretion judiciously and by recording reasons. Mechanical approach in condoning the delay would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the interest of the other party.

4. In the present case, the respondent is the landloser/claimant, who lost his valuable lands several years back and even after lapse of many years, he is unable to get just compensation as per law. It is an unfortunate situation, where the Government Authorities are dealing with the compensation files in a lethargic manner, which is causing injustice to the claimants, who all are the landlosers.

5. Property Right is the Constitutional Right under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. Such Right can be taken away only by the Authority of Law. When the lands are acquired by the Government for public purposes, the Government should equally ensure that just compensation is paid to the landlosers without causing any undue delay. It is the constitutional duty casted upon the Government to ensure that the landlosers/claimants get compensation within a reasonable period of time. Prolongation and protraction regarding the payment of compensation to the landlosers will result in infringement of their property rights conferred under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.

6. In such circumstances, where there is a dereliction of duty, negligence or lapses on the part of the Government Authorities in dealing with the land acquisition proceedings and any financial loss to the State Exchequer, then the Government has to initiate not only departmental disciplinary proceedings against such Authorities, but also recover the financial loss occurred to the State Exchequer on account of such lapses, negligence or dereliction of duty. Unless such departmental actions are initiated against the Government Authorities, there is no possibility of improving the system, and ultimately the sufferers would be the common man, who lost his valuable land.

7. It is “we the people of India” resolved